Just for old times sake

5/23/2006 6:53:37 PM

uhhhhh

They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

durr

5/23/2006 7:02:57 PM

More like OSAMA BEEN HIDIN'!

5/23/2006 7:12:48 PM

^^ haha 20+ pages last time and thats the best response yet

5/23/2006 7:37:48 PM

^^

We got him

5/23/2006 7:39:18 PM

in my pants

5/23/2006 7:56:24 PM

I think the honest-to-god response of the die-hard, dyed-in-the-wool conservatives is and has been: Syria. I mean, they're pretty dirty, actively promote terrorism, and generally make an easy target. According to the legend, there's some speculation that, for whatever reason, is being black-helicoptered right now, about how Saddam's stockpiles of WMDs were bought, paid for, and delivered to Syria before the invasion began. Attack them. What can they do back? They're not like Iran. They can't threaten to nuke anyone. Not, yet.

And this time, we know that for sure.

Anyway, I don't really know whether the opinion holds any weight. I've certainly never seen anyone come forward with compelling evidence to support the idea; and generally speaking, like with hauntings and alien abductions, that tends to be the rule, not the exception.

5/23/2006 11:46:00 PM

Mobile weapons factories

5/24/2006 12:42:14 AM

^^ did, you randomly, pick,,, your , comma locat,ions?

5/24/2006 2:26:22 AM

Because of you can't refute their arguement COMMA attack their punctuation.

5/24/2006 4:47:00 AM

Didn't they bust that Cary teenager a year or so ago on charges of "Weapons of Mass Destruction"? All he had was a half dozen pipe bombs. I'm pretty sure that Iraq had the equivalent of at least 6 pipe bombs to merit the charge.

^Ha, I'll give you credit because you probably posted half asleep but I took ^^^^ to be a spoof post. I guess someone could decide to come along and refute their "argument" though.

[Edited on May 24, 2006 at 7:35 AM. Reason : -]

5/24/2006 7:35:27 AM

logic would tell us that:

if we found WMDs = proof that WMDs exist
if we dont find WMDs /= proof that WMDs dont exist

5/24/2006 4:55:43 PM

There was an Iraqi AF general on the Daily Show a month or two back who said that Iraq had WMDs transported to Syria prior to the invasion. He went so far as to say that men under his command flew some of them across the border.

Of course, he was also pushing a book.

5/24/2006 5:16:03 PM

we also found a number of things underneath sand-colored tarps and what not...things we couldnt see from satellite imagery...again though, just because you dont find something doesnt mean its not there

and yeah i heard a few years ago a story about how they got moved to syria

the fucking United Nations gives a warlord months and months notice that they are gonna come in and inspect for weapons

you can give some lamebrains at mcdonalds notice about a health inspection and they'll get stuff cleaned up

5/24/2006 5:25:38 PM

^^ that was the only interview ive ever seen where stewart visibly held back... i felt sorry for him. He basically went on a pro-bush speech and stewart didnt do anything.

It hurt to watch...

5/24/2006 5:40:13 PM

awww, Stewart couldn't sway the politically inexperienced 20-something year old audience with his classic "if i diss bush, they will laugh" tactic?

5/24/2006 5:51:01 PM

Not that this has any bearing on reality, but Dennis Miller once asked:

"When you were in high school, if your mother told you she would be coming in three months to search your room for marijuana, would you have left anything there for her to find?"

Saddam was at least that smart.

5/24/2006 7:25:11 PM

Quote :

"just because you dont find something doesnt mean its not there"

you sir, are a tool and a douchebag.

5/24/2006 10:49:23 PM

^?

5/25/2006 7:36:41 AM

^^i see you arent capable of the simplest understandings of logic

5/25/2006 11:27:04 AM

p => q

!p

?

5/25/2006 11:42:33 AM

Quote :

"logic would tell us that: if we found WMDs = proof that WMDs exist if we dont find WMDs /= proof that WMDs dont exist "

5/25/2006 11:43:40 AM

That'd be what I was implying there, big boy

5/25/2006 11:54:23 AM

Quote :

"Not that this has any bearing on reality, but Dennis Miller once asked: "When you were in high school, if your mother told you she would be coming in three months to search your room for marijuana, would you have left anything there for her to find?" Saddam was at least that smart."

i definitely think they had weapons too, just because there was some guy that was like the number 2 man in the military in iraq when saddam was in power on the daily show

he said he saw them with his own eyes, and that they were probably moved to syria or jordan

5/25/2006 12:09:04 PM

I wish I had seen that episode.

I bet Jon Stewart just stared at him blankly and wished he'd go away so they could start the "Hmmm I wonder where the weapons are" gag again.

5/25/2006 12:11:14 PM

Quote :

"the number 2 man in the military "

because the "number 2 man" would never lie.

because Colin Powell would never bring a bunch of cartoon pictures of Saddams "weapons" to the UN if he had any reason to doubt their accuracy.

because GWB is a good god fearin christian man, who knows The LORD is on his side as he leads this nation into war in a way that will make Jesus proud.

5/26/2006 1:13:28 AM

Quote :

"see you arent capable of the simplest understandings of logic"

yea i hear ya fuckin logic. so you took PHI 340, and now youre real smart. you understand the basic concept of logical consistency.

but your textbook logic doesnt work in real world international politics, dipshit.

Nation 1: "You have weapons. give them up"
Nation 2: "No we dont have any. sorry".
Nation 1: "I know you have weapons of mass destruction. give em up or face consequences"
Nation 2: "Piss off, we dont have any. Come look for yourself"
Nation 1: "No way, now I know you're hiding them. Give them to us now or we'll attack you.
Nation 2: "This is bullshit, you people are whacked. as you can plainly see, there are no..."

*BOOM*

Nations 3-30: "wow. you got knocked the fuck out"
Nation 2: "damn. thats so fucked. all the people you killed. women and children. trashed our country..."
Nation 1: "your fault. shoulda gave up the weapons"
Nation 2: "goddammit! we don't got any..."

*BOOM*

Nations 3-30: "dude. i think thats good.... so lets see those weapons?"
Nation 1: "not now. but we know where they are. north, and east and south, and west somewhat"

...

Nations 3-30: "so, um... find the weapons yet?"
Nation 1: "weapons? there arent any weapons. look we're busy fighting insurgents who hate freedom. so, like, fuck off, mmkay?"





[Edited on May 26, 2006 at 1:39 AM. Reason : ]

5/26/2006 1:34:28 AM

uhhhh maybe you shoulda watched the interview

i doubt he was lying

5/26/2006 1:34:48 AM

you "doubt he was lying"... because... you could just see it in his eyes

well, hell. i guess that changes everything.

please strike out everything Ive said for the past three years, and replace it with "Go USA!"





[Edited on May 26, 2006 at 1:44 AM. Reason : ]

5/26/2006 1:40:37 AM

John Kerry said Iraq had WMDs

Wheres your lame excuse for that one?

5/26/2006 9:53:28 AM

thats just awesome, anytime anyone has anything bad to say about Iraq, someone always comes back with:

'Kerry supported the war, Kerry said Iraq had WMDs'

like Kerry is our friggin savior or something, like we give a shit about john kerry.

And this remains as the best answer yet:

Quote :

"uhhhhh They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. durr "

5/26/2006 11:07:49 AM

^NO

not anytime somebody has anything bad to say about Iraq

but when the thread is asking WHERE ARE THE WEAPONS OF MASS FUCKING DESTRUCTION, and people blame Bush for the lack of WMDs found, I remind them that Bush is not the only person who thought Iraq had WMDs

5/26/2006 11:18:19 AM

(1) there was war-drum beating for nearly a year before the invasion ever took place

(2) border with Syria was incredibly porous

(3) the black market, especially with respect to current demand for WMDs is very efficient

(4) whether or not he had nukes, we know he did have chemical weapons of mass destruction, because American and European companies sold that shit to him


after all this time, make of that what you will

5/26/2006 11:25:27 AM

We also know he had chemical weapons because he used them on the Kurds.

5/26/2006 11:32:37 AM

^haha i know right

5/26/2006 11:42:52 AM

come on guys, bush is an idiot, saddam was a good guy

5/26/2006 11:43:48 AM

well you are half right

5/26/2006 11:48:37 AM

I don't know...

It's kind of like, say I shoot drunknloaded here (WOULDNT REALLY DO THIS YOU KNOW I LOVE YOU BOO)

You'd know I had bullets. Now, say you're going to claim I have more bullets, and you want to perform an investigation to determine whether I do or not. If I try to block your investigation at every turn, and kick your inspectors out so that they cannot look for bullets... wouldn't that cast a clear message that any rational person would interpret as a signal of guilt?

Not only did you sell me the fucking bullets, you saw me shoot somebody with 'em. I've expressed hostility towards you.

I'm not saying Saddam had WMDs (it's probable they left in the year before the invasion, however). What I am saying is that his actions, given his past actions, cast a ridiculous amount of doubt and suspicion upon him.

5/26/2006 12:35:09 PM

bad analogy

you're forgetting 20 years or so of economic sanctions

[Edited on May 26, 2006 at 12:40 PM. Reason : ;]

5/26/2006 12:40:09 PM

economic sanctions make chemical weapons disappear?

5/26/2006 12:41:04 PM

yes, precisely what i was saying

economic sanctions make it pretty hard to maintain and develop an arsenal of WMD

5/26/2006 12:42:42 PM

That's assuming you care about your people.

Saddam was living pretty well.

Besides, how expensive is it to maintain the weapons? Can you actually illustrate that he didn't have the funds/resources to do this, or are you talking out of your ass?

Because we know he had them. The only question is what happened to them, and when he was refusing inspections, what do you expect a rational person to conclude?

[Edited on May 26, 2006 at 12:58 PM. Reason : . lol ]

5/26/2006 12:56:05 PM

Quote :

"Besides, how expensive is it to maintain the weapons? Can you actually illustrate that he didn't have the funds/resources to do this, or are you talking out of your ass?"

can you? i don't give a shit either way. i was just pointing out that your analogy is insufficient

5/26/2006 12:59:44 PM

jews took em

5/26/2006 1:00:17 PM

Quote :

"Saddam was living pretty well"

understatement of the day

5/26/2006 1:01:08 PM

It's not insufficient.

I figure you throw the shit in tanks, and place them in a warehouse or bury them. I didn't think it would be an activity that Saddam couldn't afford. To be claim he wouldn't be willing to afford it would assume he cared much about his people during the sanctions.

You're the one claiming that it'd be hard to maintain a stockpile of this stuff... I'm not a chemical weapons expert, but I didn't think it was a remarkably expensive and difficult procedure. If you have evidence to the contrary I'd like to see it... I'm not saying I'm right, and if I'm wrong I want to know it.

5/26/2006 1:01:40 PM

Re: Hard to maintain or build weapons and armies when under economic duress:

I'll take North Korea for the block.

5/26/2006 1:05:16 PM

I'll maintain it's hard to build and maintain armies under economic stress.

However, is it hard to maintain chemical weapons stockpiles? It seemed to me all you needed was a secret/secure location and some tanks to put them in (they came in these in the first place).

I'd like to look it up, but something tells me googling "how to preserve chemical weapons" isn't such a hot idea.

5/26/2006 1:06:29 PM

im not a chemical weapons expert either. but my assumptions are just as reasonable as you believe yours to be. and i assume that maintaining a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons is a little more difficult and expensive than just sticking them in a building for years and years. maybe im wrong.

but besides that, im not arguing that he didn't have them. he did, obviously. and im not arguing that he still didnt have them, i dont know. but i think the biggest issue, at least for me, is the fact that these weapons were supposed to pose some sort of imminent threat to us, when we all know THAT is total bullshit. and the fact that we haven't even found anything only makes that rationale for war even more preposterous

[Edited on May 26, 2006 at 1:13 PM. Reason : ,]

5/26/2006 1:11:19 PM

Sigh, okay asshole... I'll look for it.

I swear, if the gubment comes banging down my door, I'll snitch on you. I'll also hope Greg is with me so that he can defend my home with his small arms.

http://www.fas.org/cw/production.htm

Quote :

"Production of chemical agents in the past has anticipated their long-term storage since (in the instance of United States at least) they were viewed as deterrent weapons and by policy would not have been employed except in response to aggressor use. This also meant that the agents and/or their weapons of employment might be stored for extensive periods of time. The life span of chemical weapons was first expected to be a decade. The requirement was later increased to 20 years when it became clear that munitions were likely to be stored at least that long."

So now we know that the United States has the ability and practice of storing this stuff long term (20+ years).

Quote :

"Chemical agents can either be stored in bulk quantities or loaded into munitions. With the nerve agents in particular, the quality of the initial material must be excellent and they must be stored under inert conditions with the absolute exclusion of oxygen and moisture."

Remember, we were the supplier of the weapons.

Quote :

"When the Iraqis produced chemical munitions they appeared to adhere to a "make and use" regimen. Judging by the information Iraq gave the United Nations, later verified by on-site inspections, Iraq had poor product quality for their nerve agents. This low quality was likely due to a lack of purification. They had to get the agent to the front promptly or have it degrade in the munition. This problem would have been less severe in their mustard rounds because of less aggressive impurities. The problem of degradation inhibited their ability to deploy and employ nerve weapons but probably did not have a great effect on their use of mustard. Using their weapons soon after production probably worked well in the Iran-Iraq War, where the skies over Iraq were controlled by the Iraqis. Unfortunately for the Iraqis, loss of air control in the Gulf meant the weapons could never reach the front. The chemical munitions found in Iraq after the Gulf War contained badly deteriorated agents and a significant proportion was visibly leaking."

So it seems that they wouldn't be able to store a lot of their stuff for extended periods due to leaking when they produced the stuff themselves. What about the stuff we provided? I'm not so sure where they deployed what we gave them, so I don't know whether they used it all or not. Did we distribute them in the canisters that allowed them to store it for extended periods, or not? If so, I can't imagine it'd be a big cost.

Further up in the article, price quotes for the facilities to produce various toxins en-masse are 10-25 millionish. Is that cheap? Not for you or me.

http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/chemiraqgas2.html

In that link, you'll find that mustard gas was used on the Kurds, something the Iraqi government had a much better ability to maintain stockpiles of, apparently.

Quote :

"the fact that these weapons were supposed to pose some sort of imminent threat to us, when we all know THAT is total bullshit"

Perhaps now we do, but Saddam was encouraging acts of terrorism and even helping to fund it (I believe he supplied funds to Hamas: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm). He was hostile towards the United States, and to claim that he would have used conventional methods to deploy chemical weapons against us, is, of course, absurd. Terrorists use anything but conventional methods, and we can see clearly that he had business dealings with them.

Let's face it -- he cultivated suspicion about himself and had a year to do whatever he wanted with the weapons we had great reason to believe he had (he was playing three card monte with us). Now that we cannot find them after he had a year or so head start, there was no imminent threat towards us, and it was all bullshit? I say you're full of shit.

5/26/2006 1:25:56 PM